YEaaaah, I'm not sure why they think this is a good idea, from both a development AND a consumer standpoint.

From the developer standpoint: Will you want to take advantage of that 'newer hardware' when a large number of the users may not have it yet, thus locking you out of that customer base?

From the consumer standpoint: Are you going to want to buy it when you realize there may be a game that comes out next year, two years from now, three years from now that you might not be able to play because it will require a later version of the box?

Also, I would think games that *require* more hardware would... well, take longer than a year to *PRODUCE*?

If you then assume the consumer buys a box each year to keep up and play the latest games (which they may not, but still), and take into account the 360 and PS3 have had an ~ 10 year lifecycle: You'd pay $1000 over the course of a console generation. Heck, even if you do every *other* year, you'd *still* pay $200 more than if you'd just got a 'standard' console.

And then there's the history of how well system add-ons have done in the past (save, perhaps, for the N64 Memory expansion)....

The real fail is releasing a carbon copy sport game with features removed from the previous game and expecting people to pay full price. I've never seen a sports game go to discount price as fast as Madden 13 did. Wowsa thatgame is bad

Felgraf:YEaaaah, I'm not sure why they think this is a good idea, from both a development AND a consumer standpoint.

From the developer standpoint: Will you want to take advantage of that 'newer hardware' when a large number of the users may not have it yet, thus locking you out of that customer base?

From the consumer standpoint: Are you going to want to buy it when you realize there may be a game that comes out next year, two years from now, three years from now that you might not be able to play because it will require a later version of the box?

Also, I would think games that *require* more hardware would... well, take longer than a year to *PRODUCE*?

If you then assume the consumer buys a box each year to keep up and play the latest games (which they may not, but still), and take into account the 360 and PS3 have had an ~ 10 year lifecycle: You'd pay $1000 over the course of a console generation. Heck, even if you do every *other* year, you'd *still* pay $200 more than if you'd just got a 'standard' console.

And then there's the history of how well system add-ons have done in the past (save, perhaps, for the N64 Memory expansion)....

It's a more modern model, I think. Consider the iOS platform. New, more powerful hardware yearly, but the same iOS platform across all. Most apps work across many iterations, and can be updated to support new ones when they are released.

MightyPez:indarwinsshadow: Faily subby? Why fail, unless you looked in the mirror and realized what a sh*t for brains loser you happen to be.

Wow. You took this headline very personally.

Yeah, I probably shouldn't have, but the negative irritated me. I'm a hacker kind of guy. If I can build it (machines), take it apart, modify it, and just do something different I'm a happy camper. I like making things. When I see negatives from people who haven't accomplished sh*t all with their lives I get all kinds of cranky. Too many people saying can't instead of can.

For what it's worth, the cycle to go from sourcing components to assembling a run of competent 7" Android tablets in China is apparently about six weeks. I don't know whether moving from, say, an ARM A5 to an A9 is just a drop-in replacement, but apparently the reference designs for devices are very well understood by the people who make them.

LasersHurt:It's a more modern model, I think. Consider the iOS platform. New, more powerful hardware yearly, but the same iOS platform across all. Most apps work across many iterations, and can be updated to support new ones when they are released.

It's still a gamble, sure, but it's a more iterative approach.

While I understand your point, it's more of a case that a game like Dead Trigger will run far better on an iPhone 5 than it will on an iPhone 1/2. What happens to your game when only the guy with iterations 3 of the latest console runs the game great and it runs like garbage for people still using iteration 1 or 2? You're either intentionally hampering yourself to appeal to the entire base or cutting off a percentage of people who run your game well.

LasersHurt:Felgraf: YEaaaah, I'm not sure why they think this is a good idea, from both a development AND a consumer standpoint.

From the developer standpoint: Will you want to take advantage of that 'newer hardware' when a large number of the users may not have it yet, thus locking you out of that customer base?

From the consumer standpoint: Are you going to want to buy it when you realize there may be a game that comes out next year, two years from now, three years from now that you might not be able to play because it will require a later version of the box?

Also, I would think games that *require* more hardware would... well, take longer than a year to *PRODUCE*?

If you then assume the consumer buys a box each year to keep up and play the latest games (which they may not, but still), and take into account the 360 and PS3 have had an ~ 10 year lifecycle: You'd pay $1000 over the course of a console generation. Heck, even if you do every *other* year, you'd *still* pay $200 more than if you'd just got a 'standard' console.

And then there's the history of how well system add-ons have done in the past (save, perhaps, for the N64 Memory expansion)....

It's a more modern model, I think. Consider the iOS platform. New, more powerful hardware yearly, but the same iOS platform across all. Most apps work across many iterations, and can be updated to support new ones when they are released.

It's still a gamble, sure, but it's a more iterative approach.

Yes, but most of the games released on those aren't, well, terribly graphics or processor intensive.

The entire POINT of consoles is knowing that a game you purchase for it will (.. supposedly) run on it. With this one, there isn't that guarantee farther in.

UrCa:LasersHurt: It's a more modern model, I think. Consider the iOS platform. New, more powerful hardware yearly, but the same iOS platform across all. Most apps work across many iterations, and can be updated to support new ones when they are released.

It's still a gamble, sure, but it's a more iterative approach.

While I understand your point, it's more of a case that a game like Dead Trigger will run far better on an iPhone 5 than it will on an iPhone 1/2. What happens to your game when only the guy with iterations 3 of the latest console runs the game great and it runs like garbage for people still using iteration 1 or 2? You're either intentionally hampering yourself to appeal to the entire base or cutting off a percentage of people who run your game well.

Exactly this, which makes me think the people behind the console are just doing a money grab (and run). I don't see people buying a console in 2013 for $100 with PS2 graphics that will be replaced in twelve months. Why not get a PS3 or Xbox 360 this coming fall for around $100-$150, when the new versions are released?

UrCa:LasersHurt: It's a more modern model, I think. Consider the iOS platform. New, more powerful hardware yearly, but the same iOS platform across all. Most apps work across many iterations, and can be updated to support new ones when they are released.

It's still a gamble, sure, but it's a more iterative approach.

While I understand your point, it's more of a case that a game like Dead Trigger will run far better on an iPhone 5 than it will on an iPhone 1/2. What happens to your game when only the guy with iterations 3 of the latest console runs the game great and it runs like garbage for people still using iteration 1 or 2? You're either intentionally hampering yourself to appeal to the entire base or cutting off a percentage of people who run your game well.

I think the intention is to get people buying new consoles every few years. The price should support that easily. You're not wrong about the potential for that, and it does happen with iphones (lots of biatching about the oldest models not supporting this or that). Whether it works in this case remains to be seen.

Felgraf:The entire POINT of consoles is knowing that a game you purchase for it will (.. supposedly) run on it. With this one, there isn't that guarantee farther in.

why buy one of these when i can get those same games and hardware on my phone, which plugs into my TV through 6 dollar HDMI cable and i can attach a bluetooth controller to it for 25 bucks? I question the business side of this plan.

rpm:SuperChuck: Why all the subby hate? I'll be stunned if this thing ever sees the light of day.

Why? The hardware is nothing special. Plus, they did manage to get it on preorder at Amazon, so at least they believe it'll come out.

I agree with the others here about the 1 year cycle baloney. That dropped my interested through the floor.

That's because you don't understand it.

It's no different than a PC you purchase 1 year from now would have a better graphics card. That's just a natural evolution that allows it to play /the/ /same/ /games/ smoother and/or with more details.

You're confusing it with consoles, where one console generation can't play games for the next generation.

---

If you think a bit about it, can you accept that a game like say, GTA Vice City, will run on both a tablet with Tegra 3 and Tegra 4?

Right, what she's saying is that as chips get cheaper, the Oyua (spelled correctly?), will just have a faster processor that allows for the 99USD price point.

spawn73:It's no different than a PC you purchase 1 year from now would have a better graphics card. That's just a natural evolution that allows it to play /the/ /same/ /games/ smoother and/or with more details.

I want a games appliance. Something I don't have to worry about, just get the game and play. No tweaking, no worrying "will it run", no multi-GB patch, no figuring out which driver(s) I need to upgrade or downgrade.

You're confusing it with consoles, where one console generation can't play games for the next generation.

I'm confusing it with a console? They farking call it a console. If there's confusion, it's not mine.

spawn73:You're confusing it with consoles, where one console generation can't play games for the next generation.

But if they upgrade the hardware, then it *WON'T* be able to run games of 'the next generation.'

Unless you shell out for the new one.

I really think this is just building in a fragmented userbase, which... will not end well.

spawn73:Oh, I think it combines the upsides of the console (low price) with the upsides of the PC (constant evolution of hardware).

But it's only "Low price" if you only buy it once or twice. To get the 'constant evolution of hardware", you have to keep buying the new one, which will ultimately cost you more than the consoles of that generation ($1000 if you buy one every year over a 10-year period). ... Money that could have simply been dumped into a pretty nice PC that would keep you running for a while now (Since the ever-increasing PC demands have finally started to level off).

I realize it's a difference of opinion, mind. I just think this is a poorly designed business strategy.

rpm:spawn73: It's no different than a PC you purchase 1 year from now would have a better graphics card. That's just a natural evolution that allows it to play /the/ /same/ /games/ smoother and/or with more details.

I want a games appliance. Something I don't have to worry about, just get the game and play. No tweaking, no worrying "will it run", no multi-GB patch, no figuring out which driver(s) I need to upgrade or downgrade.

You're confusing it with consoles, where one console generation can't play games for the next generation.

I'm confusing it with a console? They farking call it a console. If there's confusion, it's not mine.

They never claimed that different generations couldn't play the same games. If you're confused, then that's on you.

---

Take the Google play store. It won´t allow you to download an app that doesn't work on your device.

That works fine for everyone involved, and obviously the Oyou (how the fark do you spell it?) is much simpler with only one generation per year. Concieveable everything will work on all devices for years.

At worst we could have companies developing for the lowest common denominatior, but that would not put it at an disadvantage to other consoles that only /has/ one generation. In reality I expect games to take advantage of faster processors, but not require them. That's how PC games, and games for Android function presently.

Felgraf:spawn73:You're confusing it with consoles, where one console generation can't play games for the next generation.

But if they upgrade the hardware, then it *WON'T* be able to run games of 'the next generation.'

Unless you shell out for the new one.

I really think this is just building in a fragmented userbase, which... will not end well.

spawn73: Oh, I think it combines the upsides of the console (low price) with the upsides of the PC (constant evolution of hardware).

But it's only "Low price" if you only buy it once or twice. To get the 'constant evolution of hardware", you have to keep buying the new one, which will ultimately cost you more than the consoles of that generation ($1000 if you buy one every year over a 10-year period). ... Money that could have simply been dumped into a pretty nice PC that would keep you running for a while now (Since the ever-increasing PC demands have finally started to level off).

I realize it's a difference of opinion, mind. I just think this is a poorly designed business strategy.

If apply the same mindset to a gaming PC, then you'd be upgrading it every year, at a considerably higher cost than 99USD a year.

I don't think this console is aiming for that market at all. I rather believe people will favorited! down 99USD and play the equivilalent of Mario Kart for ages.

So how is the Ouya different from the WDTV, Boxee, Google TV, and the rest of the $99 set-top boxes that sit on the back shelf at Fry's not getting bought?

Valve's Steam Box concept is the only new platform that I see as having a chance to break into the console market -- and they have a difficult choice between the 3DO model of licensing their design out to manufacturers that aren't invested enough in the platform's success, or the Infinium model of trying to market and sell hardware through retail channels when you have no experience in either.

When I am thinking of the continuing evolution of the hardware as a plus for the consumer, I am not thinking of people getting a new device every year. But rather that whenever you decide to purchase one, you get current hardware for 99USD, rather than what was good X years ago.

I imagine the newest ones will just play the same games better, with newer games allowing for more effects or the like, but still being the same.

When I am thinking of the continuing evolution of the hardware as a plus for the consumer, I am not thinking of people getting a new device every year. But rather that whenever you decide to purchase one, you get current hardware for 99USD, rather than what was good X years ago.

I imagine the newest ones will just play the same games better, with newer games allowing for more effects or the like, but still being the same.

That's my thought. I'm assuming it will be similar to the iPhone, where there's a new model each year, but they're all backwards compatible. No reason not to, considering the thing uses commodity hardware and software.

Felgraf:YEaaaah, I'm not sure why they think this is a good idea, from both a development AND a consumer standpoint.

From the developer standpoint: Will you want to take advantage of that 'newer hardware' when a large number of the users may not have it yet, thus locking you out of that customer base?

From the consumer standpoint: Are you going to want to buy it when you realize there may be a game that comes out next year, two years from now, three years from now that you might not be able to play because it will require a later version of the box?

Also, I would think games that *require* more hardware would... well, take longer than a year to *PRODUCE*?

If you then assume the consumer buys a box each year to keep up and play the latest games (which they may not, but still), and take into account the 360 and PS3 have had an ~ 10 year lifecycle: You'd pay $1000 over the course of a console generation. Heck, even if you do every *other* year, you'd *still* pay $200 more than if you'd just got a 'standard' console.

And then there's the history of how well system add-ons have done in the past (save, perhaps, for the N64 Memory expansion)....

Lumbar Puncture:indarwinsshadow: Faily subby? Why fail, unless you looked in the mirror and realized what a sh*t for brains loser you happen to be.

Announcing your unreleased console will be obsolete in a year, and every SKU of it will be obsolete every following year is only a good idea if you do in fact have shiat for brains.

We are talking about incremental upgrades each year such that a $99 console in 2016 will be a little bit better than the $99 console of 2013. Much like my smartphone in 2016 will probably be better than the one I have now. I don't have to upgrade every year, or every other year if I don't want to.